Andy White Anthropology
  • Home
  • Research Interests
    • Complexity Science
    • Prehistoric Social Networks
    • Eastern Woodlands Prehistory
    • Ancient Giants
  • Blog
  • Work in Progress
    • The Kirk Project >
      • Kirk 3D Models list
      • Kirk 3D Models embedded
      • Kirk 2D images >
        • Indiana
        • Kentucky
        • Michigan
        • Ontario
      • Kirk Project Datasets
    • Computational Modeling >
      • FN3D_V3
    • Radiocarbon Compilation
    • Fake Hercules Swords
    • Wild Carolina >
      • Plants >
        • Mosses
        • Ferns
        • Conifers
        • Flowering Plants >
          • Grasses
          • Trees
          • Other Flowering Plants
      • Animals >
        • Birds
        • Mammals
        • Crustaceans
        • Insects
        • Arachnids
        • Millipedes and Centipedes
        • Reptiles and Amphibians
      • Fungi
  • Annotated Publications
    • Journal Articles
    • Technical Reports
    • Doctoral Dissertation
  • Bibliography
  • Data

"Fringe" Misconceptions About Science

10/21/2015

3 Comments

 
This is just going to be a quick post: I'm only going to give myself a half hour to write it, then I've got to move on to other things.  I wanted to take some time to share another interesting data point about the misconceptions of at least some "fringe" theorists about what constitutes science.
PictureI found twenty dollars.
Over the last couple of mornings on my walk to work I listened to this recording of Hutton Pulitzer interviewing Jim Scherz at the Ancient Artifact Preservation Society (AAPS) conference that was held in Michigan October 9-11.  There was a lot of complaining and not a whole of substance in the interview, so I'm going to file it in the "take one for the team" category.  I did find a twenty dollar bill on the sidewalk while I was listening, though, so at least there's that. And there were some comments that I think are worth discussing.

About halfway through the interview (30:20), Scherz explains his view of "the scientific method:"  

"You take the data, you take all the data, you analyze the data, and you come up and see where that analysis goes: that is what is truth."

Pulitzer follows up by bemoaning the fate of "our young people" who are not being taught science. Throughout the interview the pair discuss how "science" will eventually render archaeology and anthropology obsolete.

It's very dramatic. 

It's also very wrong. Neither of these guys seems to actually understand what science is. There are a lot of different definitions and conceptions of science, but most of them share some core components.  Science is a systematic way of acquiring knowledge about the natural world. It has to have embedded somewhere in it a mechanism for falsification (proving things wrong).  Falsification allows science to be cumulative: it builds on itself because we can discard ideas that have been shown to be false.


In the quote above, Scherz is not describing "the scientific method," he's describing induction. Induction is an important part of science. When you're working on the inductive side, you have a pile of information in front of you and you sort through it and try to construct a story that makes sense and accommodates all that information.  
Inducing things (constructing general explanations that accommodate data) is great, but it's only half the battle when you're actually trying to do science.  After you construct that general explanation, you need to figure out a way to test it. You need to deduce what the implications of the general explanation are and then try to test those implications. You need to say something like "if my explanation X is correct, I would expect a, b, and c to be true." Then you actually need to go and check if a, b, and c are true.  If they aren't, there's something wrong with your general explanation (i.e., it isn't complete or correct) or your underlying assumptions.

When archaeology is done as a science, it includes a back-and-forth between induction and deduction.  It doesn't really matter where an idea comes from as long as you can test it. 

When Scherz says that science is basically the distillation of "truth" from looking at a bunch of data, he is betraying the presence of a fundamental misunderstanding that I think is shared by many "fringe" theorists. If you're one of those people, ask yourself this question:  what piece of evidence would prove your idea wrong?  If you can't think of one, you've got a problem.

A single good site in the Americas would falsify the idea that people from Civilization X or Civilization Y made it to New World before Columbus.  Discovery and excavation of the site of
L'Anse aux Meadows, for example, pretty much sealed the deal for the idea that the Norse made it to North America. When you phrase the hypothesis as "The Norse never made it to North America," you can falsify it by finding a site that proves they did. In other words, evidence can be used to falsify the hypothesis.

The reverse is not true. The hypothesis "The Minoans made it to North America" cannot be falsified because neither I nor anyone else can produce a piece of evidence that proves that the Minoans weren't here. All I can do is ask "what is your evidence that it did happen?"  If that evidence is some re-labeled photos, or some tablets that have been shown to be fraudulent, you really haven't met even the minimum threshold for having a serious discussion about the merits of your idea.  If the strongest "evidence" that you can produce is a laundry list of problematic artifacts (some of which are known frauds), can you really be that surprised that very few people outside of the "safe zone" of the AAPS conference take your work seriously?

If there's no mechanism for evaluating an inductively-constructed explanation, the quality of the evidence of the source of the idea matter. In the last half of the interview, Scherz rattles off a list of "evidence" that includes the Kensington Rune Stone, the "Detroit plates" (he may be referring to the Michigan Relics aka the Soper Frauds), the Newark Holy Stone, and the artifacts from Burrows Cave.  It's the same list we've heard for years.

I presume that not all "fringe" theorists accept as genuine all of the artifacts and sites that are put forward as evidence of pre-Columbian transoceanic contact.  If that's correct, then by what mechanisms do you determine what is genuine and what is not?  Is there any interest in critical examination of pieces of evidence? Are there any artifacts out there that all "fringe" theorists agree are fake?  Do you take into account the possibility that fake artifacts exist?  If so, what do you do about it?

Sadly, I've seen very little evidence that there exists much of an appetite among "fringe" theorists to critically evaluate their evidence (or even bother to read the critical evaluations of others).  Pulitzer has already demonstrated that he has no interest in weeding out fakery, and has now become a support of Burrows Cave (apparently based on the argument that a modern forger would have been unable to trace a map of the Great Lakes).  I fear that if there was a good piece of evidence for something interesting floating around out there it would get lost among all shouting about the nonsense.  

It seems to me that the path to "truth" is going to pretty hard to follow if it's paved with artifacts that are made up. Good luck with that.

3 Comments
Don Spohn link
10/21/2015 02:07:06 pm

I've been invited to present at AAPS around 4 times; not sure why. Most hate the results of my typological research which leads me to believe American Indians were the prehistoric copper miners who created the copper implements and ornaments we find here. I also present the fact that scientists here and in the old world have finger printed copper artifacts to their mines of origin. No American copper in the Old World to date. If significant amounts are found, I will be proven wrong.

Reply
Andy White
10/21/2015 02:53:01 pm

Well Don, I bet they probably don't appreciate your willingness to evaluate an idea based on an examination of evidence. Just a guess!

Reply
Joe Scales
10/22/2015 08:44:55 am

Pulitzer, like all the others out on the fringe, are solely salesmen; out to make a buck from the uneducated with fantastic claims disguised as truth. I don't know if you caught this at the time, but just before the last episode for season 2 of Curse of Oak Island aired, Pulitzer claimed on his website that monolithic structures were about to be revealed in the depths of 10x (a dig site determined by dowsing, decades ago by Daniel Blankenship). He hawked his treasure kit as if it would sell out the very next day after the show aired, as it would be necessary to interpret the find. Of course no such monolithic structures were revealed on the last episode; only more vague, subjective speculation to prolong the hoax that is treasure on Oak Island. That web page sensationalizing the alleged find was of course scrapped just after the episode aired and revealed no such specific findings.

To me, this was attempted larceny on the part of Pulitzer.

Reply



Leave a Reply.


    All views expressed in my blog posts are my own. The views of those that comment are their own. That's how it works.

    I reserve the right to take down comments that I deem to be defamatory or harassing. 

    Andy White

    Follow me on Twitter: @Andrew_A_White

    Email me: andy.white.zpm@gmail.com

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner


    Picture

    Sick of the woo?  Want to help keep honest and open dialogue about pseudo-archaeology on the internet? Please consider contributing to Woo War Two.
    Picture

    Follow updates on posts related to giants on the Modern Mythology of Giants page on Facebook.

    Archives

    August 2021
    March 2021
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014

    Categories

    All
    3D Models
    AAA
    Adena
    Afrocentrism
    Agent Based Modeling
    Agent-based Modeling
    Aircraft
    Alabama
    Aliens
    Ancient Artifact Preservation Society
    Androgynous Fish Gods
    ANTH 227
    ANTH 291
    ANTH 322
    Anthropology History
    Anunnaki
    Appalachia
    Archaeology
    Ardipithecus
    Art
    Atlantis
    Australia
    Australopithecines
    Aviation History
    Bigfoot
    Birds
    Boas
    Book Of Mormon
    Broad River Archaeological Field School
    Bronze Age
    Carolina Bays
    Ceramics
    China
    Clovis
    Complexity
    Copper Culture
    Cotton Mather
    COVID-19
    Creationism
    Croatia
    Crow
    Demography
    Denisovans
    Diffusionism
    DINAA
    Dinosaurs
    Dirt Dance Floor
    Double Rows Of Teeth
    Dragonflies
    Early Archaic
    Early Woodland
    Earthworks
    Eastern Woodlands
    Eastern Woodlands Household Archaeology Data Project
    Education
    Egypt
    Europe
    Evolution
    Ewhadp
    Fake Hercules Swords
    Fetal Head Molding
    Field School
    Film
    Florida
    Forbidden Archaeology
    Forbidden History
    Four Field Anthropology
    Four-field Anthropology
    France
    Genetics
    Genus Homo
    Geology
    Geometry
    Geophysics
    Georgia
    Giants
    Giants Of Olden Times
    Gigantism
    Gigantopithecus
    Graham Hancock
    Grand Valley State
    Great Lakes
    Hollow Earth
    Homo Erectus
    Hunter Gatherers
    Hunter-gatherers
    Illinois
    India
    Indiana
    Indonesia
    Iowa
    Iraq
    Israel
    Jim Vieira
    Jobs
    Kensington Rune Stone
    Kentucky
    Kirk Project
    Late Archaic
    Lemuria
    Lithic Raw Materials
    Lithics
    Lizard Man
    Lomekwi
    Lost Continents
    Mack
    Mammoths
    Mastodons
    Maya
    Megafauna
    Megaliths
    Mesolithic
    Michigan
    Middle Archaic
    Middle Pleistocene
    Middle Woodland
    Midwest
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Mississippian
    Missouri
    Modeling
    Morphometric
    Mound Builder Myth
    Mu
    Music
    Nazis
    Neandertals
    Near East
    Nephilim
    Nevada
    New Mexico
    Newspapers
    New York
    North Carolina
    Oahspe
    Oak Island
    Obstetrics
    Ohio
    Ohio Valley
    Oldowan
    Olmec
    Open Data
    Paleoindian
    Paleolithic
    Pilumgate
    Pleistocene
    Pliocene
    Pre Clovis
    Pre-Clovis
    Prehistoric Families
    Pseudo Science
    Pseudo-science
    Radiocarbon
    Reality Check
    Rome
    Russia
    SAA
    Sardinia
    SCIAA
    Science
    Scientific Racism
    Sculpture
    SEAC
    Search For The Lost Giants
    Sexual Dimorphism
    Sitchin
    Social Complexity
    Social Networks
    Solutrean Hypothesis
    South Africa
    South America
    South Carolina
    Southeast
    Stone Holes
    Subsistence
    Swordgate
    Teaching
    Technology
    Teeth
    Television
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Topper
    Travel
    Travel Diaries
    Vaccines
    Washington
    Whatzit
    White Supremacists
    Wisconsin
    Woo War Two
    World War I
    World War II
    Writing
    Younger Dryas

    RSS Feed

    Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly